Product Liability and Warranty Litigation in Türkiye

In Türkiye, there is no standalone regulation governing product liability. Instead, product liability is governed by provisions contained across several legal instruments.

The primary sources are the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 (the “TCO”) and the Turkish Consumer Protection Law No. 6502 (the "TCPL"). While contractual liability arises under Articles 219-231 of the TCO, whereby sellers are liable for defects in goods sold under the warranty for defects provisions, tortious liability is governed by Articles 49-76 of the TCO, under which manufacturers and sellers may be held liable for damages caused by their fault or negligence.

Further provisions may be found in the ​Product Safety and Technical Regulations Law No. 7223 (the "PSTRL"). This legislation implements EU-aligned product safety principles and establishes strict liability for defective products. 

Additionally, the TCPL provides further protection for consumers, including implied warranties and defective goods remedies. It should be noted that consumer arbitration committees, established under the TCPL to resolve disputes arising from consumer transactions, have jurisdiction over product liability claims where the value in dispute falls below the applicable monetary threshold. This threshold is revised annually by the Ministry of Treasury and Finance; for 2026, disputes valued below 186,000 Turkish Lira must be referred to District or Provincial Consumer Arbitration Committees, whilst claims at or above this threshold must be brought before the consumer courts.

Given the above, the Turkish product liability regime comprises three separate systems, contractual, tortious, and strict liability, each providing a distinct basis for claims.

Pursuant to the relevant legal framework, a "product" is defined broadly as any movable good, including those incorporated into another movable or immovable good. With respect to software, embedded software integrated into products is generally covered by this definition. The status of standalone software remains subject to interpretation, though recent developments align with EU approaches that treat certain software as products. 

Several categories of persons may bring product liability claims under Turkish law. Consumers and end-users (consumers or people not acting in a consumer capacity and third parties) who suffer damage from defective products have standing to pursue claims. 

Furthermore, legal heirs of deceased individuals may pursue claims for material and moral damages on behalf of the deceased under the TCO.

The damage that may be claimed due to a defective product is regulated under the provisions of the TCO. 

The scope of pecuniary compensation for material damages caused to a person shall be determined in accordance with the relevant framework under the TCO. Pursuant to Art. 53 of the TCO, in the event of the injured party's death, funeral expenses may be claimed; if death did not occur immediately, treatment costs and losses arising from the reduction or loss of working capacity, as well as damages suffered by those deprived of the deceased's support, may be claimed. 

Pursuant to Art. 54 of the TCO, in the event of bodily injury to the injured party, treatment costs, loss of earnings, losses arising from the reduction or loss of working capacity, and losses arising from the impairment of the injured party's economic future may be claimed. Further, Art. 55 of the TCO provides that compensation for loss of support and bodily damages shall be calculated in accordance with the provisions of the TCO and the principles of liability law. 

In determining the amount of non-material losses, pursuant to Article 56 of the TCO, considering the circumstances of the incident, an appropriate sum of money may be awarded to the injured party as non-pecuniary compensation for impairment of the injured party's bodily integrity. In cases of serious bodily injury or death, it may also be decided that an appropriate amount of money shall be paid as compensation for pain and suffering to the relatives of the injured or deceased person.

Under Turkish law, a product is “defective” where it fails to deliver the level of safety, quality and functionality that persons are reasonably entitled to expect, having regard to its intended and reasonably foreseeable uses, the information, instructions and warnings provided by the producer or seller, and the state of scientific and technical knowledge when the product was supplied. This notion appears in different legal settings. 

In contractual relationships, the TCO regulates lack‑of‑conformity in sales (Articles 219–231), where the buyer’s expectations are benchmarked against the contract, objective standards and the seller’s representations. 

In consumer transactions, the TCPL provides mandatory protections and warranty rules. 

Separately, the PSTRL establishes administrative duties and defines an “unsafe” product as one posing an unacceptable risk to human health, safety, property or the environment, considering presentation, intended purpose, reasonably foreseeable use, instructions and warnings, and the time of placing on the market. Although the PSTRL primarily governs market surveillance and recalls, its safety concepts are routinely used as evidence in civil disputes. 

What must be proven depends on the legal basis of the claim. For contractual defect claims, liability is essentially strict as to the seller: the buyer must show that a lack of conformity existed at the time of delivery, that the buyer complied with examination and timely notice requirements (subject to more lenient rules for consumers), and that the preconditions for the chosen remedy (repair, replacement, price reduction or rescission) are satisfied. Fault is not an element of the seller’s liability in this context. 

For tort claims brought against manufacturers, importers or others outside privity, the claimant must establish the existence of a defect, damage, adequate causation between the defect and the damage, and fault. In practice, courts apply an objective assessment centred on the product’s safety performance and warnings and may infer negligence where the nature of the defect and accident warrants it, but there is no general strict‑liability regime in tort. 

In all cases, the temporal focus is important: in contract, the defect must exist at delivery; in tort, the assessment is anchored to the time the product caused harm, informed by its condition when placed on the market.

Pursuant to Art. 190 of the Turkish Civil Procedure Law (the “Civil Procedure Law”) No. 6100, each party bears the burden of proving the facts upon which it relies. Accordingly, a claimant must prove the defect (or lack of conformity), the damage suffered, and the causal link. In non‑consumer sales, the buyer must also prove that it examined the goods in due course and gave timely notice of the defect, failing to decide which contractual remedies may be forfeited. In tort‑based claims, the claimant must establish fault in addition to defect, damage and causation.

However, certain exceptions apply. In consumer sales, if a defect becomes apparent within six months of delivery, it is presumed to have existed at delivery; the seller may rebut this. This presumption concerns the temporal existence of the defect rather than fault. Although the TCO presumes a debtor’s fault in cases of non‑performance, sales defect liability does not turn on fault in any event. Turkish courts often rely on expert evidence and may draw inferences where the facts speak for themselves, but there is no general statutory reversal of the burden of proving negligence against manufacturers in tort. 

Finally, compliance with examination and notice rules is applied more leniently in consumer cases, and contractual terms that shift or dilute statutory consumer protections are ineffective.

Courts conduct a contextual, objective assessment of defectiveness and safety. They consider the product’s intended and reasonably foreseeable uses; the legitimate safety expectations of the average user; the completeness, clarity and prominence of instructions and warnings; the product’s design, manufacturing and quality control; and the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time it was supplied. 

Weight is given to whether the product posed an unreasonable risk to people or property considering its expected use and available risk‑mitigation measures. Compliance with mandatory legislation, harmonized standards, technical regulations and sector‑specific rules is strongly persuasive evidence that the product met minimum safety benchmarks, but it is not conclusive: a product may still be found defective if, despite formal compliance, it failed to provide adequate safety under the circumstances. 

Conversely, demonstrable adherence to the then‑current state of the art may negate negligence in tort and support the contention that legitimate safety expectations were met. Post‑market conduct also matters. For example, under the PSTRL, producers and other economic operators have duties to monitor safety and conduct corrective actions and recalls; unjustified delays or inadequacies in these steps can be treated as evidence of defect and fault and may aggravate liability.

Responsibility may reach several actors, depending on the legal route pursued and the facts. 

In contracts, buyers typically proceed against their immediate seller for lack of conformity; the seller is therefore the primary addressee of the statutory remedies in both B2B and consumer sales, with upstream contractual recourse against distributors, importers and manufacturers. 

In tort, claimants may pursue claims against manufacturers, importers, distributors or others whose conduct contributed to the defect or its effects. Where the foreign manufacturer cannot be identified, the importer is generally treated as the producer for liability purposes. Service providers may also be liable where a defective service contributes to the harm (for example, improper refilling, installation, maintenance or modification of a product). 

In consumer matters, the TCPL preserves the consumer’s mandatory rights against the seller for defective goods and against service providers for defective services, while not precluding parallel tort claims against producers and importers for unsafe products causing damage.

Where multiple actors contribute to the same damage, courts generally apply joint and several liability, enabling the claimant to recover the full amount from any one liable party. After satisfying the claim, that party may seek contribution from other responsible actors, with internal apportionment reflecting each party’s degree of fault, causal contribution, control over the product, professional expertise and the nature of any breached duties. This approach can apply even where the parties’ liabilities arise on mixed bases, such as a seller’s contractual liability and a manufacturer’s tort liability, provided the same damage is at issue. 

Manufacturers and other professional operators frequently bear a larger share owing to their control over design, production and safety processes, although the outcome remains fact‑sensitive and driven by expert evidence on causation and contribution.

Defendants may assert the absence of a defect, arguing the product met reasonable safety expectations at the relevant time; challenge the existence or quantum of damage; and contest causation by showing that harm resulted from misuse, abnormal or unforeseeable use, improper maintenance, user disregard of clear warnings, third‑party intervention, substantial post‑delivery modification or force majeure. 

Contributory negligence by the claimant may reduce liability proportionately. Compliance with mandatory rules, standards and the then‑current state of the art is not complete defence, but it is powerful evidence against negligence and in support of the product meeting legitimate safety expectations. Courts scrutinize these defences closely, particularly where personal injury and consumer safety are involved, but will give effect to them where the evidential record supports a break or attenuation in the causal chain or a reduction for contributory fault.

Contractual limitation or exclusion of liability for defects is possible only within narrow confines. In B2B sales, parties may agree to limit or exclude defect liability, but such clauses are strictly construed, are ineffective in cases of intent or gross negligence, may be set aside where they offend good faith (notably in standard terms), and cannot be used to shield intentionally concealed defects. 

In consumer contracts, any clause purporting to waive or restrict statutory remedies or the trader’s liability for defective goods or services is null and void. More generally, contractual provisions that purport to exclude liability for personal injury or death caused by defective products are unenforceable as deemed contrary to mandatory law and public policy. Contractual risk allocation does not affect compliance duties under product safety legislation or administrative enforcement, nor does it foreclose tort claims by injured third parties.

Limitation periods depend on the claim’s legal basis and the nature of the goods. For contractual defect claims under the TCO, claims relating to movables generally become time‑barred two years after delivery, whereas claims for immovables are subject to a five‑year period. These periods sit alongside the buyer’s duties to examine and notify defects without undue delay once discovered; failure to do so may forfeit remedies in non‑consumer sales. Fraudulent concealment by the seller defeats contractual exclusions and can engage longer, general periods. In consumer sales, mandatory rules apply and consumers typically have a two‑year period from delivery for movables and five years for immovables (housing), with statutory warranty regimes for durable goods operating within these bounds and the six‑month presumption assisting with proof of pre‑existing defects.

Tort‑based product liability claims are subject to a two‑year period running from the date the claimant learned of both the damage and the liable person, and in any event a ten‑year long‑stop from the harmful act. In cases of death or bodily injury, if the conduct constituting the civil wrong also qualifies as a criminal offence with a longer limitation period, the longer criminal limitation period applies to the civil claim. For latent injuries, the knowledge‑based two‑year period starts when the claimant becomes aware, or ought reasonably to have become aware, of the damage and the responsible party, subject to the ten‑year long‑stop unless extended via the criminal route.

Under Turkish law, product liability and warranty operate through distinct legal routes, but they frequently intersect in practice. In sales, the TCO imposes a statutory lack‑of‑conformity regime on the seller that functions much like an “implied warranty”: irrespective of fault, the seller is responsible if, at delivery, the goods do not conform to the contract or to objective expectations based on the seller’s descriptions, samples and ordinary use. 

In consumer sales, the TCPL and secondary legislation add a mandatory “warranty certificate” regime for designated durable goods, typically ensuring at least a two‑year warranty period during which the producer/importer undertakes to repair or otherwise resolve defects free of charge. These statutory and mandatory regimes are not labelled “implied warranties” in Turkish terminology, but they play an equivalent role by attaching non‑fault‑based responsibilities to sellers (and, for warranty certificates, to producers/importers) even without explicit contractual wording.

These warranty mechanisms are contractual or statutory in nature and primarily address the product’s fitness and conformity for ordinary and agreed purposes over defined periods, alongside the buyer’s remedies. They do not, as such, displace tort liability for bodily injury or third‑party property damage caused by unsafe products. Personal injury and broader consequential losses are generally pursued under tort principles against manufacturers, importers or other professional operators, with the warranty history serving as relevant evidence but not as a prerequisite to recovery.

The available remedies depend on the legal basis pursued. In contract, the TCO grants buyers a suite of alternative remedies when the seller delivers a defective (non‑conforming) product, including rescission (return of the goods and price), a proportionate price reduction, free repair at the seller’s expense if not unreasonably costly, or replacement with a conforming item if available. These may be coupled with damages under general provisions where the conditions are met. In consumer transactions, the TCPL mirrors and strengthens these options, making them mandatory and consumer‑favourable, and warranty‑certificate obligations require producers/importers of certain durable goods to repair defects free of charge within the warranty period, with replacement or refund pathways triggered if repairs fail or are not feasible.

Outside privity, claimants may pursue tort claims under the TCO against manufacturers, importers, distributors or others whose fault caused damage through an unsafe product. In tort, the claimant must establish defect, damage, causation and fault; while courts often infer negligence from circumstances in obvious defect cases, Turkish law does not provide a general civil strict‑liability regime for product defects. The TCPL primarily imposes product safety and market surveillance duties (including recall and corrective actions) and does not itself create a standalone strict‑liability compensation scheme; however, non‑compliance with those duties is powerful evidence on defect and fault and may influence the scope of damages in civil proceedings. 

Product liability enables compensation for damage caused by unsafe, defective products and serves as a mechanism to protect consumers. Legally, it is a form of strict liability, not based on faults. It refers to the manufacturer’s non-contractual responsibility. The conditions for such liability are set out in Article 6/II of the TCPL. Accordingly, for a manufacturer or importer to be held liable, the injured party must prove the damage suffered and the causal link between the defect and the damage. 

Punitive or exemplary damages are not available under Turkish law. Damages are compensatory and are limited to loss suffered and loss of profit proven, with the prohibition on unjust enrichment preventing awards exceeding the harm. In appropriate cases, non‑pecuniary (moral) damages may be awarded for personal injury or severe violations of personality rights, but these retain a compensatory character rather than a punitive one.

Turkish civil procedure does not provide US‑style broad discovery. Each party must submit the evidence on which it relies, but courts can order the production of specific documents identified by the requesting party when they are in the other party’s possession or under its control and are material to the dispute. If a party unjustifiably refuses to comply with such order, the court may draw adverse inferences and may deem the requesting party’s factual allegations proven to the extent supported by the record. Legitimate confidentiality and trade‑secret concerns can be addressed through protective measures, including limited access, redaction or in‑camera review.

In product cases, commonly produced materials include without limitation sales contracts and general terms, invoices and delivery notes, product specifications, bills of materials, manufacturing and quality‑control records, test and certification reports, instructions for use and warnings, correspondence regarding complaints and after‑sales service, warranty certificates and service records, incident/accident reports, and records of regulatory interactions, including market‑surveillance findings, recalls and corrective action plans.

Türkiye does not recognise US‑style class actions and has no opt‑out mechanism. The principal collective tools are representative or “group” actions available to certain legal entities (such as associations, chambers and consumer organisations) to seek declaratory or injunctive relief aimed at protecting their members’ or consumers’ interests. These actions are typically used to stop unlawful practices, remove ongoing infringements or obtain determinations on legality, but they generally do not allow the representative entity to recover individual monetary damages for group members. Affected individuals must file their own compensation claims or join their claims procedurally where appropriate. As a result, the most common method for damages remains individual litigation, sometimes coordinated through multiple joined claims arising from the same facts.

Product liability claims are predominantly funded by the parties themselves or through insurance where available. Turkish law does not specifically regulate third‑party litigation funding; nor does it prohibit it. In practice, funding arrangements based on freedom of contract are generally regarded as permissible, provided they do not contravene mandatory rules (for example, prohibitions on assignments of certain claims or restrictions tied to legal profession ethics). 

The market for third‑party funding in domestic product litigation remains limited, but funding is more commonly encountered in larger cross‑border disputes and international arbitration. Any funding arrangement should be structured to respect attorney‑client confidentiality, avoid undue control over litigation strategy by the funder, and comply with professional conduct rules applicable to counsel.

Under Article 326 of the TCPL, the losing party bears the litigation costs. Courts allocate costs ex officio in the judgment, including court fees, expert and witness expenses and a statutory attorney’s fee calculated under the bar tariff. If the defendant did not occasion the lawsuit and accepts the claim at the first hearing, courts may depart from the default allocation and not order it to bear costs for the proceedings. Court‑awarded attorney’s fees are tariff‑based and typically differ from the private fee agreed between a client and its counsel.

With respect to fee arrangements, Turkish law permits success‑based or conditional fee agreements between lawyers and clients within statutory and ethical limits, including adherence to the minimum fee tariff and public‑policy constraints. Percentage‑based success fees are used in practice, although agreements must not contravene prohibitions designed to prevent excessive fees or the transfer of the subject matter of the dispute to counsel. Cost “uplifts” tied to outcome are therefore feasible in private agreements, but they do not bind the court when awarding recoverable costs, which remain determined by the tariff regardless of what the client has agreed to pay its lawyer.

There has been limited high‑level appellate guidance specifically on product liability in the strict sense over the past year. Turkish courts continue to adjudicate most disputes through established lack‑of‑conformity principles in contract and fault‑based tort rules, with expert evidence playing a central role in determining defect, causation and compliance with standards. The general trend remains a demanding standard of care for professional manufacturers and importers, scrutiny of warnings and instructions in evaluating reasonable safety expectations and increasing reliance on market‑surveillance findings and recall records generated under the TCPL as persuasive evidence in civil cases.

In the absence of a dedicated strict‑liability statute, courts have not departed from the fault‑based tort framework, though they may infer negligence on the facts in cases involving obvious hazards and inadequate risk controls. In a case concerning a gas cylinder that was no longer fit for use due to the expiration of its service life, the Court held that the company responsible for refilling and placing the cylinder on the market acted negligently by offering an unsafe product. The Court ruled that the manufacturer should bear 90% of the liability for the damage, finding that the lower court’s attribution of only 70% fault was contrary to procedural and substantive law (Court of Cassation 4th Civil Chamber, 26 February 2003, E. 2002/11057, K. 2003/1826).

In earlier case law, the Court further clarified that manufacturers’ liability is, in principle, fault‑based under Article 41 of the former TCO. However, the Court expressly rejected a rigid application of fault liability, emphasizing that manufacturers are required to exercise the highest level of care expected by law in the context of their professional activities. Accordingly, fault must be assessed in light of this heightened duty of care rather than through a narrow interpretation of general tort principles (Court of Cassation 4th Civil Chamber, 27 March 1995, E. 1995/6256, K. 1995/2596). 

There are no publicly announced legislative proposals creating a standalone civil product liability regime in Türkiye at present. The TCPL has strengthened product safety governance and post‑market obligations, but it largely addresses administrative duties and enforcement rather than civil liability standards. 

Looking ahead, developments in the European Union on modernising product liability for digital and AI‑enabled products may influence Turkish policy, especially in sectors where regulatory alignment is pursued. A comprehensive statute clarifying civil liability for software, updates, connected products and post‑market risk management is discussed in academic and professional circles, but no formal draft has been introduced. Until then, Turkish courts are expected to continue applying the TCO contract and tort rules, supplemented by sectoral regulations and the evidential significance of the TCPL compliance, to address claims involving emerging technologies.